Hospice cuts are short-sighted

Published: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.

It is among the most cost-effective, costing the state about $2,200 per patient — with most of those patients living less than six months and the average life span being about 10 weeks.

Unfortunately, it is also among a host of spending cuts the state has enacted, a move that could eliminate this efficient care for many of the people who are in the final stages of terminal illnesses.

The state’s Medicaid program will no longer pay for hospice care for new patients. Those who are receiving hospice care now will continue to receive it under the state program.

This is just the latest of a host of state budget cuts that seem short-sighted and ultimately damaging to a state where health care and higher education are already barely supported.

People who rely on hospice care for some minimal form of comfort in their dying days should not go without that care.

There are economic as well as moral reasons for that.

The moral reasons are obvious: Our most vulnerable citizens — regardless of means — should be afforded the most-basic palliative care by a society that has so much.

The economic reasons might not be as obvious, but they are just as real and just as compelling.

If the poorest and sickest among us go without the small services we currently provide, they are more likely to end up needing emergency services at local hospitals — services that cost many times the amount spent on hospice care.

There is a precedent that argues in favor of keeping hospice care in the budget rather than letting it fall victim to short-sighted cuts.

According to the Louisiana-Mississippi Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, Arizona cut its Medicaid hospice benefit in 2009 only to reinstate the program in 2010 after seeing its health care costs rise because of the cut.

That would be a powerful reason not to duplicate the mistake, even if we disregard the moral arguments for taking care of our fellow Louisianans.

In the end, though, we cannot as a society disregard the moral element of this discussion. The money at stake here — about $11.4 million, according to the organization — is too great for most of us to envision, but it is not much in the scheme of a state budget of tens of billions of dollars.

Surely, there is a way to return that money to the budget in a way that is more humane and more likely to result in long-term savings.

<p>Hospice care is the most basic and humane form of medical service.</p><p>It is among the most cost-effective, costing the state about $2,200 per patient — with most of those patients living less than six months and the average life span being about 10 weeks.</p><p>Unfortunately, it is also among a host of spending cuts the state has enacted, a move that could eliminate this efficient care for many of the people who are in the final stages of terminal illnesses.</p><p>The state's Medicaid program will no longer pay for hospice care for new patients. Those who are receiving hospice care now will continue to receive it under the state program.</p><p>This is just the latest of a host of state budget cuts that seem short-sighted and ultimately damaging to a state where health care and higher education are already barely supported.</p><p>People who rely on hospice care for some minimal form of comfort in their dying days should not go without that care.</p><p>There are economic as well as moral reasons for that.</p><p>The moral reasons are obvious: Our most vulnerable citizens — regardless of means — should be afforded the most-basic palliative care by a society that has so much.</p><p>The economic reasons might not be as obvious, but they are just as real and just as compelling.</p><p>If the poorest and sickest among us go without the small services we currently provide, they are more likely to end up needing emergency services at local hospitals — services that cost many times the amount spent on hospice care.</p><p>There is a precedent that argues in favor of keeping hospice care in the budget rather than letting it fall victim to short-sighted cuts.</p><p>According to the Louisiana-Mississippi Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, Arizona cut its Medicaid hospice benefit in 2009 only to reinstate the program in 2010 after seeing its health care costs rise because of the cut.</p><p>That would be a powerful reason not to duplicate the mistake, even if we disregard the moral arguments for taking care of our fellow Louisianans.</p><p>In the end, though, we cannot as a society disregard the moral element of this discussion. The money at stake here — about $11.4 million, according to the organization — is too great for most of us to envision, but it is not much in the scheme of a state budget of tens of billions of dollars.</p><p>Surely, there is a way to return that money to the budget in a way that is more humane and more likely to result in long-term savings.</p><p>Editorials represent the opinions of</p><p>the newspaper, not of any individual.</p>